Talk:Contraction and Convergence

copied and pasted british government statement
This article has been copied and pasted from here. Is it public domain and does it deserve an article?
 * probably not public domain, and definitely deserves an article. Rewriting to fit wikipedia style plus expansion can deal with copyright issues, since much of it is noting facts and listing sources. Rd232 06:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but I've had to delete the article as it was a clear copyright infringement. I have left a note on a contributor's talk page (User_talk:Dejvid) which is explanatory. I'm leaving this talk page intact to facilitate efforts aimed at an acceptable rewrite. Regards — Encephalon 20:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ruledandmargin 03:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Ruledandmargin: I'm currently updating this based on the source cited in the references section - will footnote as soon as possible.

14:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)14:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)14:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)14:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)14:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)14:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)14:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Aubrey.meyer@btinternet.com (talk)

I don't exactly understand the substance of the issue raised here. The reference tagged in the C&C article here that (if I understand this correctly was the source of the objection raised) was an article written by GCI and owned by GCI but reproduced with permission from GCI by the Environmental Audit Committee of the UK House of Commons in a public document which is freely available on the committee's website. The document in question is not "A UK Government Document" nor is it one over which they have any copyright.

Perhaps I have misunderstood the objection.